Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister. Most Members have a view on the Social Welfare Bill and a significant number want to contribute to the debate on it because they are familiar with constituents who avail of the services and payments provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs on a weekly basis. At a time of increasing unemployment, the position in this regard will be reinforced. Senator Cummins referred to the practical difficulties faced by people who have just lost their jobs. The Minister will be aware of recent evidence of delays in the processing of claims. I understand this issue is being addressed but there is a necessity for the Minister and her officials to monitor the position closely.

During the past 20 years, the Department of Social and Family Affairs — from an administrative perspective and through computerisation and other advances — has made progress in ensuring that people receive their social welfare entitlements at the earliest possible date. It must be our aim to ensure that those who are in need of unemployment assistance or benefit will have their claims expedited. Issues of this nature give rise to a great deal of annoyance. The State does not benefit financially from these delays, which are causing great difficulties for a number of people, because the individuals who are awaiting payment are usually in receipt of moneys from their community welfare officers.

The first issue to which I wish to refer in the context of the Bill is the carer's allowance. I welcome the modest increases in the rates of payment. I welcome the ongoing improvements in respect of the income disregard and acknowledge the work done by the Minister's predecessors — particularly the late Séamus Brennan — in this regard. The Bill deals with payments under the current scheme but there is a need for a substantial debate on carers and the financial parameters we have put in place in respect of these people who provide such a valuable community and social service.

The Minister for Health and Children is currently guiding the fair deal legislation through the Lower House. While I generally support the approach taken in that Bill, I still hold firmly to the view that we must try to ensure — whether it be through the fair deal, the social welfare system or the carer's allowance and carer's benefit schemes — that the maximum number of elderly people are allowed to remain in their homes and communities and in the care of their families.

It is not simply the financial aspect of this matter about which I am concerned, I am also concerned about the broader social aspect. I am interested in how we want our society to develop and how we intend to focus on the elderly. We could achieve a kind of nirvana where everyone would be entitled to a lovely comfortable bed — without being obliged to undergo any financial stress — in a local, community, district or nursing home facility. However, I do not believe we should aim for this. We should try to ensure that, in so far as is possible, the maximum number of people should be allowed to remain with their families and within their communities.

In light of the moderate budget relating to it, the carer's allowance is a tremendous success in the context of allowing people to be cared for in the setting in which they would want this to happen. I hope the Minister will devote a great deal of attention in the next 12 months to the possibility of a significant and further relaxation in the income disregard. I do not have the figure to hand but a number of years ago I discussed this matter with the Minister's predecessor, the late Séamus Brennan, and I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered at the time what would be the relatively low financial cost to the State of removing the means test in its entirety and paying the full rate of carer's allowance to all those who provide full-time care and attention to people who require it. We are not discussing opening the floodgates because to receive carer's allowance one must provide full-time care and attention to a person who requires it.

As already stated, I welcome the increases in the allowance and the income disregard. The Minister has already made her mark in many Departments. However, if she wishes to leave that mark on social policy and in the area of social engineering, she should give serious consideration to introducing a universal system or scheme for carer's allowance that would encourage people to remain in their communities. There will be a need to return to and deal with this matter in more detail at some point in the future.

On PRSI payments and entitlements for self-employed payments, in recent weeks I received a number of queries from self-employed persons or their spouses who lodged claims for disability or unemployment benefit and who were extremely surprised that as a result of the class of social welfare contributions they pay, they are not eligible for full entitlements. I accept from where the Minister is coming in the context of her financial perspective. However, further examination must be given to the question of the entitlements of self-employed persons.

I congratulate the Department on the apparent progress it has made with regard to the retrospective payment of PRSI in respect of self-employed spouses. In general, and while it may sound sexist, such people are usually farmers' wives. PRSI was introduced in respect of all farmers in the 1980s and 1990s. In general, their wives, who were vital components of farming enterprises and businesses, were advised that they need not pay PRSI and did not, therefore, enter the stream of PRSI coverage. Where it is clear a spouse has contributed in a meaningful manner to an enterprise or business, the Department is willing to consider retrospective PRSI payments. While the concept and principle is good, this requires a little more work in terms of details as claims are not being processed as quickly as one would wish.